There was a recent post by Susan Smaller in the Rutland Hearld about an audit at Vermont Yankee:. The audit addressed the issues learned at the Fukushima disaster which could be applied to Vermont Yankee:
While Vermont Yankee is built on the banks of the Connecticut River, its location above the river is estimated to be at the 500-year flood level. But flooding can come from more common sources. Just in the past year, Vermont Yankee has had problems with missing flood seals, which allowed standing water to seep into underground equipment….“This was not an inspection, it’s an audit designed to find out whether the guidance was faithfully followed,” said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC…Sheehan said that since it was not an inspection, there are no violations, but that the audit team found problems or areas of concern.
“As has been the case at other plants, our audit team developed several observations on areas where Vermont Yankee did not include certain necessary information in walkdown reports or failed to properly perform calculations,” he said Thursday.
There is such wonderful use of language: Since it was an audit and not an inspection, there were no violations. I wonder if an audit would trigger an inspection? Perhaps we could apply such principles to the tax code: an IRS audit would not be able to find violations. Maybe that is the way that corporate taxes are done.
Meanwhile, downstream of the nuclear reactor we put our faith in nature that there will not be a once in every 500 year flood in the Connecticut River anytime soon.